CVE-2023-28585

Ongoing control assessments and code testing (static/dynamic analysis, fuzzing) surface memory buffer restriction failures, which are then remediated before release.

Managed runtimes used by platform-independent applications (e.g., JVM, CLR) enforce memory safety, preventing most buffer overflows that require direct memory manipulation.

Memory protections (e.g., W^X, ASLR) make exploitation of buffer-boundary violations far harder to turn into code execution.

Detects exploitation attempts that produce memory corruption, crashes, or anomalous behavior.

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent integer-overflow flaws during development, but eliminating only this CWE covers only part of the broad control intent.

A.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices including secure coding guidelines, developer training, security requirements, checkpoints, and testing that can catch or avoid integer overflows before they reach production, but this is only a minority slice of all instances since the weakness can still be introduced in non-compliant implementations, outsourced code without full assurance, or languages/libraries where the guidance is not rigorously applied.

A.8.26 explicitly lists resilience requirements against buffer overflows and SQL injections (and input validation/integrity checks) determined via risk assessment; this reaches the calculation+allocation error that enables CWE-680 but does not guarantee complete or correct implementation of those requirements, leaving a minority slice unaddressed.

Secure architecture principles encourage use of safe arithmetic libraries and overflow detection.

Secure coding standards directly require prevention of integer overflows that lead to buffer overflows.

Security testing can detect integer-overflow-to-buffer-overflow conditions during development.